European aid do not prop-up dictatorships. Most of the Western foreign aid funds require ridiculous clauses for political reform towards "democracy," institutional reform against "corruption," burdens of environmental preservation conformity, and other nonsense demands. The Western foreign aids do not stabilise existing African governments because of the above nonsense and work to undermine their sociopolitical balance. There is a reason why most, if not all, African nation-states turn to the CCP for financial assistance because the CCP loans and funds do not have the above destabilising restrictions. If the West offered aid to stabilise existing African governments, without the ludicrous demands of "human rights," then Europe will witness fewer migrants attempting to flee the political chaos of their home nations.
do not prop up dictatorships? ur saying northern african states patrol the dessert border and sea because they want to? libya contains refugees caught trying to flee in prison camps just because they want to? especially mali when meanwhile they have terrorists inland to worry about. marroco for example gets even better trade agreement based on them beating down refugees at their direct border to spain.
"A new proposal mooted last week involves using EU funds to promote private investment of up to €60bn in countries where many migrants come from – Ethiopia, Niger, Nigeria, Mali and Senegal, as well as Jordan and Lebanon. " -[2016 theguardian]
(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/16/bodies-migrants-found-niger-desert-people-smugglers-algeria)
algeria is tho being brutal
"Unlike Niger, Algeria takes none of the EU money intended to help with the migration and refugee crisis, although it did receive $111.3m in aid from Europe between 2014 and 2017." 2018 aljazeera
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/06/walk-die-algeria-abandons-13000-refugees-sahara-180625064043040.html
The Norther African nations do not want uncontrolled mass migration into their nations, much like all sane governments in the world, unlike the EU, which has no government. It was NATO bombs that killed Gaddafi and destroyed the government in Tripoli, resulting in the chaos that currently reigns in that forsaken region. Even the warring factions in Libya can agree that uncontrolled mass migration into Libya will be unfavorable to the existence of a nation-state called Libya. The Northern African nations do not require foreign bribes to pursue policies of rational self-interest.
If the West had any far-reaching, rational foreign policy, they wouldn't be undermining stable regimes in Africa and the Middle East with cock and bull humanism, but rather support the stability of these regions by investments and aid unencumbered by demands of political "reform." It is the CCP money that will assist in stabilising sub-Saharan African states, thereby reducing the migration pattern northward from these areas. It is Russian military power that is restoring stability and order to the region of Syria by assisting legitimate government of President Assad. What is the EU policy, other than sending aid to malcontented rebel scum in Syria and refusing needed foreign loans to African states without ludicrous demands of political "reform?" By pursuing foreign policy of undermining "dictatorships" and promoting "democracy," the West harm themselves. Even recently, the West supported rioters in Hong Kong, which would necessitate the CCP to divert resources in suppressing internal dissent, at precisely the time Europe needs CCP money to prop-up failing African regimes to stem the uncontrolled migration northward.
I only wish the West would pursue some rational, longer-term foreign policy that would benefit Europe, instead of prostituting their culture and legacy chasing after nonsense idealism and financial interests that benefit only the few.
first paragraph would make sense if they patrol the southern border, and if i didnt just showed you they actually do recieve aid tied to them regulating emigration. perhaps you have overlooked the links? and countries like niger or mali already have a pretty tight border patrol in the north, its called the sahara dessert. yet they close down any routes through it causing people to go off routes, potentially lost in desert and become dried up corpses. also libya is not representative to northern african nations, its one example where EU prolongs the conflict. I am not saying I support NATOs actions that lead up to the conflict in any way.
second point was already made in the comments by hamsterpowerii and i agree that funding terrorists to destabilize a dictatorship (that in the case of assad is not even that bad) is not the right course of action. one way to destabilize cruel dictatorships is making healthcare and education available (see my other comment on hamsters comment). i am against nato military intervention, except for mali where the government actually asked for help to deal with terrorists coming in from the south (not the north).
also about ur second point, the media is carefully manipulated to manipulate the "democracy". most people in europe dont know that most syrians are ok with assad and he gives them more freedoms than the "moderate rebels" give. they are also spoon fed lies about the chemical attacks (i did a few posts on them aswell). so can you blame them for voting wrong in this democracy? they dont even suspect the fraud.
as for ccp, their strategy is mostly get countries into debt traps and then install military bases or extract resources in return, while the current president benefits from corruption money. many african presidents are officially democratic but actually they are not, and the rural vote decides the popular president who is not the best. or like in benin they might get 2 choices of the same thing. i lived in zambia for a while and i watched the country go down as Sata was getting the rural vote against rubia banda. after his death the family squabbled for power. now they have opposition media crack downs. those dictatorships just need reforms enabled through healthcare and access to education.
and letting people in that need help is not nonsense or idealism but its a legal duty that came after the holocaust and the west signing the geneva convention. paying other countries to prevent refugees from coming is the way the west is trying to back out of its legal obligation. they are in the end paying countries to kill people through drowning or dessert in an extremely inefficient way. developed countries are obligated to give aid money to developing countries to help them out but if the help is spent on borders soldiers and arms killing people as ineffectively as possible then the money is not well spent and it wont help the country develop. it wont solve the problem.
i feel like in many points we agree to each other and just misunderstood each other. so i hope i cleared up my view point. as for the tied aid, it does happen.
Geneva Convention is an European legal matrix, formulated under Western, Protestant moral value system. The West like to, and would want the rest of the world to, imagine their legal agreement as something universal in value and force to be applicable even for societies of non-European sociocultural value systems and worldviews. If a nation of a differing sociocultural matrix desires to participate in Western political and economic infrastructure, like Turkey, I can understand the West imposing their views and demanding submission under their legal system. But claiming universality of a regional legal and moral perspective upon all 6 billions souls on this planet is delusional and impractical.
The reason for many African states existing on a trajectory of failure and cyclical "revolutions" is because these nations are not nations at all. The borders of these so-called African nations are concocted from colonial administrative convience, not developed from cultural and political realities. That the economy of Africa is purely based on resource extraction reflects the arbitrary boundaries of their mercantile, colonial past. If the West sincerely desire to help the Africans and the Arabs, then they would negotiate redrawing of these nation-state borders along tribal, ethnic, cutural, and political realities. Failing that option, the next best course would be to support existing political regimes in crushing dissent and rebellion to impose social stability in these areas. Currently, the West neither supports existing regimes, in fact they actively undermine these regimes, nor desire stable reorganisation of these colonial remnants because Africa and the Middle East is perceived by the West as merely bottomless warehouses for raw materials to feed into their factories.
The export of pernicious Western humanism to socioculturally incompatible regions of the planet has resulted in instability and chaos. Even within the EU, the member states do not agree with Western, Prostestant, humanist value system, upon which many of EU legal framework is founded. The ISIS ought to have been a predicted and expected reaction to 50-plus years of Western humanism exported and imposed upon alien sociocultural matrices, but the hubris of self-righteousness caused the West to be blind. The influx of mass migrants into Europe may be their comeuppance for their hubris, but continued mass importation of refugees will result in Europe fragmenting into tribal and ethnic enclaves, with vast areas of Africa and Middle East becoming population denuded deserts. It is a future favorable neither to the Europeans nor the refugees.
the concept of refugees finding shelter in a believer country is concept in geneva convention and islam, which is all of africa... the koran talks about refugees elaborately...
second paragraph is delegitimizing the existance of nations in africa and is suggesting they should either go back to their tribal heritage or fight war for a more natural border. how about USA does the start and let the states fight among each other for a "natural border" and with canada. these borders simply exist and tho the way they were drawn is arbitrary, there is no better way of solving border disputes. also that is not quite the issue about the borders? no one cares about a border in the sahara because there are no people. im just asking for EU to stop funding those countries to do their dirty work (just like US does to mexico) in killing the refugees... i gave you sufficient evidence of that funding already which u still seem to ignore... instead you extremed your position with "Currently, the West neither supports existing regimes" to imply africa is not recieving aid money at all...
EU is largely lead christian democratic. but also non christian imposing parties support the values of the geneva convention, except the right extremist parties ofcourse...
The Yanks did fight a bloody war to determine which cultural factions dominate the nation. The landed gentry and agrarian South lost to the mercantile and financial urban culture of the North. In Africa, the most socially stable nation is Rwanda because one tribal faction made their competition irrelevant in the 1990s. Despite economic mismanagement, Zimbabwe remains relatively stable socially because of unquestionable dominance Mugabe's tribal faction exercises. Do you think centuries of tribal and ethnic differences, which has existed before the Europeans ever crawled out of their caves to dominate the ashes of civilisation left by the Mongol horde, will be resolved because of recent, forced arbitrary colonial amalgamation?
Just because the gutless European politicians bribe Morocco to perform their dirty deeds does not negate the ludicrous political and social demands generally placed upon African nations in exchange for financial assistance. Democracy is the one of the most pernicious ideas that Europe imposed upon Africa, along with conceptualisation of colonial administrative borders becoming "national" borders. And what is the EU solution for mass migration? Import all 1.2 billion souls living on the continent into Europe, in addition to 17 million souls in Syria?